Why do YOU listen at low levels? In my case I listen quiet when I don't want to annoy my neighbours below. This means any bass boost from a loudness network means turning the volume down further.
At medium levels, I often use my tone controls to turn the bass down a little for the same reason (Cambridge Azurs have well designed tone controls with fairly subtle effect). I can still clearly hear/feel the heart beat on Dark Side of the Moon
I rarely listen at anything like live music levels as I value what is left of my hearing
At medium levels, I often use my tone controls to turn the bass down a little for the same reason (Cambridge Azurs have well designed tone controls with fairly subtle effect). I can still clearly hear/feel the heart beat on Dark Side of the Moon
I rarely listen at anything like live music levels as I value what is left of my hearing
Yes, I'm reminded now of listening to a collection of Elvis (to pay respects ...
) a couple of days ago. Increasing the volume didn't subjectively make his voice "louder", but the bass guitar became more and more a throbbing accompaniment which to some degree was out of balance with the rest of the sound. The AGC of the ear/brain was doing its job of adjusting my hearing so the sound didn't overload, but it was less effective on the bass notes ...Frank
doesn't get more melodic than this .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g54hCCAP1lk Belgium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ3EDk05YHk ...their version ..
Ernest Ranglin - Below The Bassline - LIve in NYC November 2010 - YouTube
Last edited:
The Fletcher-Munson curves and their more modern equivalent mean exactly what they say they mean. They are a measurement of equal loudness of pure tones. It is an extension of the equal sensitivity concept that may be bogus that turning down the level requires compensation at low and high frequencies to get the same perceived balance. All you can actually derive is that for tones that are more boring than open organ pipes you will get a similar tonal balance. Claiming that the tonal balance of complex sounds or music will be the same "balance" really is not proven by the measurements.
People like the effect but all too often for the same reason they like it a full volume, more boom and squeak sells.
People like the effect but all too often for the same reason they like it a full volume, more boom and squeak sells.
Because I live in a 14 sq. m (app. 150 sq. ft) room, rather full of just about everything.
Because I have neighbors in my apartment building, I'm on the 8th floor.
Because the walls are just a bit thicker than paper and you can hear a lot through them, from barking dogs onwards.
Because I don't like very loud anything, including music.
Because I am not always in the mood to listen via headphones.
doesn't get more melodic than this .....
Ernest Ranglin & The High Notes - Surfin (live) - YouTube Belgium
Jamaican Jazz Orchestra - 'Surfin' (Ernest Ranglin) - YouTube ...their version ..
Ernest Ranglin - Below The Bassline - LIve in NYC November 2010 - YouTube
With all due respect to you and the artists, Wayne, this is not my definition of melodic. To me, this is just jazz, very civilized, from someone who is obviously musically literate, but still jazz.
It comes nowhere near the likes of Enya, Loreena McKennit, Steeleye Span, etc.
And, to add insult to injury, I'm also heavily into pop, folk, folk-rock, symphonic rock, etc of the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies. Classical only if by Waldo de los Rios.
I was told the only thing wrong with loudness contours was that it was for an average speaker . 100 % agree with DF 96 that it is an average of our hearing also . Much better than nothing if available when listening late at night when kids are in bed etc . If it was programmable for different levels or even it remembered a CD/DVD that might be good . It could ask me if I wanted contour .
Yesterday I said something which on reflection was contradictory . I liked EQ specifically as part of the original recipe like RIAA ( mad not to ) . I tried to stress corner frequency important ( hyper ) . The daft idea of using RIAA and tone controls to make 78's sound better is just that . If using correct curves pure alchemy happens . I did say apart from that I don't like EQ . Contour might not strictly be EQ . It is more like central heating . It can make something easier to use when the environment demands .
Bad hi fi is like bad TV . My brother showed me how to adjust an old fashioned TV tube for grey scale . When understanding the problem I noticed that shadows in black and white were not always the same . Sometimes slightly blue and other times green . I could then see it in skin colours . The tube was replaced and it was better . It was never perfect . My brother said that is because the single ended drive transistors were without feedback . The linearity was rather good seeing as the circuits so crude . He reasoned the transistors would suit audio . Dvv and I like these transistors . similar types are BF720/721 today ( BF 469/470 of old ? MPSA 92 and 42 might be from the same origins ? ) . When choosing a TV black and white is a great test then and now ( 78's of TV if you like ) . The old Sergent Bilko from the 1950's has biting clarity ( became Top Cat as a cartoon I believe ) . I would say bad hi fi is a bit like a near to death TV tube . It can be constantly tweaked , it never bites as it should . Having said that I reckon a good programmable contour curve is worthwhile .
On RIAA you are daft not to have a bit of 75 uS adjustment as seldom is it exactly 75 uS ( DMM's are often 50 uS , Disco is often to the London curve although is cut to play RIAA , it cuts bass better , old LP's sometimes 100 uS ) . John made a point some time ago about MC pick ups and overload ( slewing ) . I would also point people to the very odd behaviour of pick ups at about 15 kHz . Most would do well with a bit of " grey scale " correction via the 75 uS . It won't be night and day . I might well offer a free lunch of tonal colour . Fugi , Konica , Agfa , Kodak film all had tonal preferences . Paul Simon choose to sing a song about it . Agfa was perhaps the unsung hero . Colour fidelity poor , subtlety great . A press photographer I knew took both in Agfa and Kodak Ectachrome . He felt the Ectachrome very accurate and better than the more expensive professional Kodak . He then colour corrected the Agfa in the lab using the Kodak as a reference . The Agfa could be pushed to ridiculous speeds . He had two cameras with the two films . It also meant he always had choices if one shot failed . Our eyes tell us this story better than our ears I feel . I am sure it is the same story and the brain processing is the same . It is the bandwidth that is less with sound . Sound fatigues us more as I feel the brain offers less capacity for processing ? We could argued that sound has changed more in history than vision ? I suspect that is right . tress , buildings are similar . Modern sounds not .
Yesterday I said something which on reflection was contradictory . I liked EQ specifically as part of the original recipe like RIAA ( mad not to ) . I tried to stress corner frequency important ( hyper ) . The daft idea of using RIAA and tone controls to make 78's sound better is just that . If using correct curves pure alchemy happens . I did say apart from that I don't like EQ . Contour might not strictly be EQ . It is more like central heating . It can make something easier to use when the environment demands .
Bad hi fi is like bad TV . My brother showed me how to adjust an old fashioned TV tube for grey scale . When understanding the problem I noticed that shadows in black and white were not always the same . Sometimes slightly blue and other times green . I could then see it in skin colours . The tube was replaced and it was better . It was never perfect . My brother said that is because the single ended drive transistors were without feedback . The linearity was rather good seeing as the circuits so crude . He reasoned the transistors would suit audio . Dvv and I like these transistors . similar types are BF720/721 today ( BF 469/470 of old ? MPSA 92 and 42 might be from the same origins ? ) . When choosing a TV black and white is a great test then and now ( 78's of TV if you like ) . The old Sergent Bilko from the 1950's has biting clarity ( became Top Cat as a cartoon I believe ) . I would say bad hi fi is a bit like a near to death TV tube . It can be constantly tweaked , it never bites as it should . Having said that I reckon a good programmable contour curve is worthwhile .
On RIAA you are daft not to have a bit of 75 uS adjustment as seldom is it exactly 75 uS ( DMM's are often 50 uS , Disco is often to the London curve although is cut to play RIAA , it cuts bass better , old LP's sometimes 100 uS ) . John made a point some time ago about MC pick ups and overload ( slewing ) . I would also point people to the very odd behaviour of pick ups at about 15 kHz . Most would do well with a bit of " grey scale " correction via the 75 uS . It won't be night and day . I might well offer a free lunch of tonal colour . Fugi , Konica , Agfa , Kodak film all had tonal preferences . Paul Simon choose to sing a song about it . Agfa was perhaps the unsung hero . Colour fidelity poor , subtlety great . A press photographer I knew took both in Agfa and Kodak Ectachrome . He felt the Ectachrome very accurate and better than the more expensive professional Kodak . He then colour corrected the Agfa in the lab using the Kodak as a reference . The Agfa could be pushed to ridiculous speeds . He had two cameras with the two films . It also meant he always had choices if one shot failed . Our eyes tell us this story better than our ears I feel . I am sure it is the same story and the brain processing is the same . It is the bandwidth that is less with sound . Sound fatigues us more as I feel the brain offers less capacity for processing ? We could argued that sound has changed more in history than vision ? I suspect that is right . tress , buildings are similar . Modern sounds not .
I never said loudness correction was good by deafult. I know of far too many examples where it does smear the sound and/or is overblown.
On the other hand, I know HK made a valiant attempt to get it right phase-wise, and blimey, it's a veritable whole 6 transistor circuit on my 6550 integrated amp. Truth be told, it DOES sound better than any other I know of, it boosts bass frequencies, but manages to keep the overall sound clean. If only it had been level adjustable ...
Obviously, it has to be defetable, not series switched on as on older German made TV sets. Preferably also level adjustable.
Equally obviously, it's not everybody's cup of whatever. Some like it, some don't, and that's all there is to it. My objection was in connection with FM curves, which I feel are written off completely unjustly. Of course they are not perfect, if they represent some average they cannot be perfect by default, but if schools of medicine around the world deem them good enough to teach the future young doctors, I put no stock in audiophiles' claims that they are not necessary and are in fact harmful, unless one's experiences are connected to one or two truly bad examples.
Odd you should manetion Agfa, Nige. My late dad was an avid slide buff, and has left me an inheritance of some 17,000 slides, from 1960 until around 1980. He tried just about every slide film he could get his hands on, and in the end, Agfa was quite clearly the best in terms of depicting colour. Kodak had a pronounced greenish tone to it, that I remember, while Fuji film looked a bit washed out.
Later on, in the mid 70ies, I found Agfa tapes to be about as good as Maxell. Surprisingly enough, THE reference standard, BASF, was about the worst for me, it produced what was a dull sound to me. The fact that it was used to produce reference master tapes for calibrating and adjusting of tape recorders as per the IEC and DIN standards didn't impress me one little bit. Consequently, Maxell remained my first choice, and if that was unavailable, Agfa took its place, or perhaps some Scotch, which I also liked.
On the other hands, Maxell just wasn't what it took for Compact Cassettes, TDK did better. And I always had decks which could be calibrated by the user, only manually, never automatic. I still own the venerable Sony TC-K 880 ES, and it will never leave me for as long as I live, that's one damn fine sounding machine and is built like a tank.
On the other hand, I know HK made a valiant attempt to get it right phase-wise, and blimey, it's a veritable whole 6 transistor circuit on my 6550 integrated amp. Truth be told, it DOES sound better than any other I know of, it boosts bass frequencies, but manages to keep the overall sound clean. If only it had been level adjustable ...
Obviously, it has to be defetable, not series switched on as on older German made TV sets. Preferably also level adjustable.
Equally obviously, it's not everybody's cup of whatever. Some like it, some don't, and that's all there is to it. My objection was in connection with FM curves, which I feel are written off completely unjustly. Of course they are not perfect, if they represent some average they cannot be perfect by default, but if schools of medicine around the world deem them good enough to teach the future young doctors, I put no stock in audiophiles' claims that they are not necessary and are in fact harmful, unless one's experiences are connected to one or two truly bad examples.
Odd you should manetion Agfa, Nige. My late dad was an avid slide buff, and has left me an inheritance of some 17,000 slides, from 1960 until around 1980. He tried just about every slide film he could get his hands on, and in the end, Agfa was quite clearly the best in terms of depicting colour. Kodak had a pronounced greenish tone to it, that I remember, while Fuji film looked a bit washed out.
Later on, in the mid 70ies, I found Agfa tapes to be about as good as Maxell. Surprisingly enough, THE reference standard, BASF, was about the worst for me, it produced what was a dull sound to me. The fact that it was used to produce reference master tapes for calibrating and adjusting of tape recorders as per the IEC and DIN standards didn't impress me one little bit. Consequently, Maxell remained my first choice, and if that was unavailable, Agfa took its place, or perhaps some Scotch, which I also liked.
On the other hands, Maxell just wasn't what it took for Compact Cassettes, TDK did better. And I always had decks which could be calibrated by the user, only manually, never automatic. I still own the venerable Sony TC-K 880 ES, and it will never leave me for as long as I live, that's one damn fine sounding machine and is built like a tank.
I think with a bit of thought the F M curve is a great idea . The fact that someone has bothered to predict our needs is wonderful . If my amp said contour when playing low I am sure Colleen would say yes please ( we often listen at 2 AM , very often Paul Weller by then ) . If it was permanent I might forget and full in love with it . Rational Audio had it on an amp which was also happy to drive 1 ohms . I was rather ashamed I hadn't realized . It sounded great with the ultra fussy Linn Isobakiks ( better than anything I would say ) . I suspect it was exactly matched ? Astonishingly good . A very simple amp with feed forward I believe ( Check design ) ?
And the explanation is simple. Speakers have 12 dB / Oct slope below Fs, so if loudness correction is properly designed listening on lower volume you can get wider frequency response boosting frequencies below Fs. But with wrong speakers you would get boost on wrong frequencies. It is when loudness correction is properly done. But when it was designed with F-M in mind, it will never sound good.
Wave, what you said may be true, but it goes head on against every bit of practical experience I have ever gathered.
A poorly designed (murky, overblown, etc) loudness switch will ruin the sound on each and every speaker you use, perhaps a bit less here and a bit more there, but that ain't gonna sound good however you look at it.
And vice versa, a job well done will generally sound quite resonable at worst, and usually rather good wherever you use it.
As I see it, what you said is the very reason why it's best when the loudness function is adjustable, so it can cater for this or that speaker better. One needs to consider just two speakers, a teeny weenie small speaker with a 4 inch "mid/bass" driver (as are so fashonable these days) and a towering monster with a 12 or 15 inch bass driver working only up to about 200 Hz. They will clearly respond to a loudness command quite differently, the first probably actually gaining, and the second very possibly being overblown.
A poorly designed (murky, overblown, etc) loudness switch will ruin the sound on each and every speaker you use, perhaps a bit less here and a bit more there, but that ain't gonna sound good however you look at it.
And vice versa, a job well done will generally sound quite resonable at worst, and usually rather good wherever you use it.
As I see it, what you said is the very reason why it's best when the loudness function is adjustable, so it can cater for this or that speaker better. One needs to consider just two speakers, a teeny weenie small speaker with a 4 inch "mid/bass" driver (as are so fashonable these days) and a towering monster with a 12 or 15 inch bass driver working only up to about 200 Hz. They will clearly respond to a loudness command quite differently, the first probably actually gaining, and the second very possibly being overblown.
Last edited:
With all due respect to you and the artists, Wayne, this is not my definition of melodic. To me, this is just jazz, very civilized, from someone who is obviously musically literate, but still jazz.
It comes nowhere near the likes of Enya, Loreena McKennit, Steeleye Span, etc.
And, to add insult to injury, I'm also heavily into pop, folk, folk-rock, symphonic rock, etc of the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies. Classical only if by Waldo de los Rios.
You need help little buddy ....
Any decent fullrange speaker is going to pickup room gain DVV, boosting via F-M curve will make it sound .. well ... Blah .... and as pointed t by Wave, if correctly designed for a particular speaker in a particular room , yes, maybe with multiple contours ..
Hey Wait a min,
Sounds like another EQ ...
Last edited:
OK , change of pace .....
What determines the output impedance of an amplifier, the amt of outputs, source resistors? what's necessary to lower the output impedance as much as possible..
I'm thinking current drive like this ....
http://apogee-acoustics.de/download/AUDIOphile02_11_Apogee_EN.pdf
What determines the output impedance of an amplifier, the amt of outputs, source resistors? what's necessary to lower the output impedance as much as possible..
I'm thinking current drive like this ....
http://apogee-acoustics.de/download/AUDIOphile02_11_Apogee_EN.pdf
You need help little buddy ....
Actually, I'm 6'3'' tall (that's 189 cm for Wave
), and weigh in around 250 lbs, so by no stretch of imagination - even yours - could I be called "little". If you refer to age, I am not sure, but at months below 60, I am either your senior, or am thereabouts. If you are older, I bow to seniority.
And I do believe I am way past any redemption, my black soul is damned.
How else could it be with anyone consorting with Lucifer's work, in form of a loudness pot? - Status
- Not open for further replies.